The Real Debate

Let’s talk about the real debate on health care. While members of our executive branches of government debate over health care reform, and whether to include a public option with or without the right of states to opt out, millions of voting Americans are having a real debate. They are debating whether to pay the rent or pay for the insulin to control their diabetes. They are debating how they will afford food for the month since this month’s unemployment check had to be used for the nebulizer so the baby with asthma could breath. Here in America the real debate on health care includes making a decision on how many pain killers you can take and still be productive and not lose your job, because the knee replacement is not covered by the company insurance; it was a preexisting condition.

The public option for many American looks quite different than those being debated behind the walls of Congress today. The public option Congress is debating appears to be fueled by what is in the best interest of the insurance companies rather than what in the best for the general public. Learning brail should not be the only option for the man who is suffering with glaucoma. Leg braces and a walker should not be the only option for a child struck by the car of a drunk driver.

I believe that health care reform should include a public option and exclude any triggers or op-out provision. I believe that every American should have some equitable provision to quality health care. At what point will those elected by the public, to serve the public, stop debating and act in the best interest of the public?

The public option as described by Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University, appears to meet the needs of the majority. Hacker says it is a plan that would be modeled after the Medicare program that Americans are familiar with and like. It would be available to those Americans who don't have good coverage from their employer. It would also be available to workers who work in the smallest firms. And it would be made available through some kind of new insurance-purchasing exchange, through which people could get access to both private health insurance plans and this new public plan. He goes on the state that the benefit of the plan would be to give individuals a broader choice of doctors and over time it would bring down the cost of private insurers.



If this is the case what is Congress debating? Are they debating politic power and money for a few, in lieu of a health plan for all? Why does this have to be an Obama plan, or a Democratic plan, or a Republican plan? Shouldn’t it just be a plan to make health care more affordable for everyone?

State’s Option On Public Option

Jane Hamsher posts her concerns regarding states having the authority to decided their participation in the public option, stating that this was an immoral and unnecessary political compromise. Then Jane yielded her blog comments to Rikyrah, a blogger whose words were much stronger. Rikyrah states “I feel as others on ‘the left of the left’ – this is utter BULLSHIT.” She went on to make her point that putting the public option component of the healthcare plan in the states’ hands would basically reestablish the boundaries of the Civil War. In her mind she believes that a majority of the states that would opt-out would be states with the largest improvised segments of African Americans. Rikyrah compares the opt-out option compromise to the creation of social security under Franklin Roosevelt, pointing out it took nearly a generation for Blacks in this country to see some form of equitable benefits from the social security system. I don’t think Rikyrah had a specific or targeted audience. Her comments seem to be open for all who would take the time to read her work. I for one believe she raises a point that main stream media will not touch. Her message was strong and clear and although she makes some historical comparison, there were little to no information supporting her view. It is interesting in comparing a blog to an editorial in a major news paper. Blogs are more of an unfiltered personal view or opinion. I not sure if you receive a truer perspective of an issues, but you certainly get a better feel for the emotional energy and passion for the subject being discussed.